Re: hash-based requests

>From: Justin Cormack <[email protected]>
>  
> > If HAVE messages are somehow indexed to tree location, then it works
> > pretty well.
> 
> You can encode the path down a binary tree (left = 0, 1 = right) as the
> HAVE message payload. Thats fairly independent of how (if at all) you
> actually index your nodes. You can with non binary trees too if you insist...

Problem is this turns back into a variable length string.

> > > The other alternative is a two-phase protocol where you first obtain the Merkle
> > > tree before you can do anything else.
> > 
> > I'm working on a sample implementation which computes the hashes, and
> > uses a midsize branching factor. Turns out working with n-ary trees isn't
> > always easy.  %-)
> 
> Its almost never worth it. Possbly never... Whats your reason for not using
> binary?

I'm working with block size divided by hash size as the branching factor.
This results in a node fitting into a single message. At the same time
a block of hashes can be accounted for like a payload block. Should also
mollify the folks looking for a flatish tree (2TB with only 3 levels).

Problem is computing the indicies correctly.  %-)


-- 
(\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)___/)
 \   (    |         [email protected] PGP 8881EF59         |    )   /
  \_  \   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  |   /  _/
    \___\_|_/82 04 A1 3C C7 B1 37 2A*E3 6E 84 DA 97 4C 40 E6\_|_/___/




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BitTorrent/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/